Seven reasons why civilian leaders should not point fingers at the military

The civilian-military showdown is not a rare occurrence in our politics, but when political fighters take to demeaning the military establishment in the guise of “guarding” democracy. The concerns at the end of general public certainly spring up in view of people’s experience with both the governance setups; i.e- junta and civilians.

Here are seven reasons why political leaders should not point fingers at the military establishment.

1- Lust for power

The political leaders in our country (of a sizable majority) often subject military to intense criticism for intervening in politics. But why do military intrude into political affairs? Civilian leaders should first come out of throwing platitudes and ensure real service delivery for public. In that scenario, their case could become more strong to take on military.

2- Corruption

It’s no surprise for political leaders when they’re blamed for indulging in corruption. Yes, they do and they ultimately lose people’s confidence in them. Had they been sincere representative of the public, masses should have come out in their support. But this doesn’t happen in our country.

3- Let public decide

During the sixty-eight years of Pakistan’s existence, for over three decades, there was military rule or martial law. Had military leaders been so bad or incompetent than people could have taken to streets to register their protest or perhaps overthrown the junta. Overall people love democracy… don’t they?

4- Flaws within

Despite bad governance, lack of leadership qualities and still a civilian leader taking it to the helm of affairs is mostly because a political clout that a he usually possess. It’s hardly a ‘public service’ factor that civilian leaders are famous of. Money never guarantees public sympathy and support.

5- Why political leaders be superior? any good reason?

It’s a common objection of political leaders that they often accuse military of overstepping its domain and authority. They should strictly follow this popular saying here “action speak louder than words”. Merely invoking constitution and law for political supremacy doesn’t interest public. They want employment, security and basic necessities. If political leaders fail in delivering this very vital service, they don’t deserve to be called “true and lawful” leaders.

6- Failure to control inflation, poverty

Constitution and democracy alone can’t help a poor man find livelihood. It’s the governance structure that addresses such problems at a larger scale. If rampant poverty, inflation and lawlessness exists during a democratic set-up. Why people – not the suppressed ones – would stand for it. It’s generally observed that such problems doesn’t occur during military rules. Remember Karachi in early 2000s till 2007 when Musharraf led the country? Was there menace of target killing? Was GDP going too low in comparison to this time? Certainly, no.

7- U-turns, when in opposition, and when in government

We have often seen changing views of political actors when they are in opposition and in government. We have seen such instances in the past when a political party doesn’t oppose military intervention in politics, mainly when they are in opposition. Since their party comes to power, they dispute their earlier views and suddenly it all becomes bad about the military. This volte-face doesn’t go well with the public.